What I want to know is what you all are doing online when its past your bed times...

Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

For the same reason I would call a uniate priest's vestments a 'costume,' they may be Holy Vestments of the Priesthood when worn by Orthodox Priests, but when worn by the Unia they are nothing more than constume, inorder that the Liturgy of the Orthodox, with whom they are divorced, may be preformed like the theater.

OK, that's it. If "Monophysite" is bad, this is worse. Saying that other people are just pretending to do the liturgy is, to me, at the top of the list of slanders that gets tossed out by Ortho-partisans. Call it false religion if you must, but implying that it is deliberate pretense isÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š malicious. I know that you know better than that. It's about time the moderators starting quashing people who say things like this.

I'm really getting tired of seeing GiC's words twisted on this forum to mean anything other than what he intended.I don't agree with some of his views, and have said so. Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said. And why bring up the race/ethnicity card? GiC certainly didn't. He made a valid point about a foreign concept, and you reply with the concept of "foreigners" in your country.

« Last Edit: August 03, 2005, 10:10:04 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.

But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass. This is an astoundingly disrespectful way to speak of the mysteries and the liturgy of the Church. If he doesn't believe that WR liturgies are true liturgies, and that the mysteries are not present in them, then he should have the courage of his convictions to say it, rather than making insulting comments about liturgies of the Church.

I did go back and read what GiC said. He called the vestments that my ORTHODOX priest wears costumes. Well GiC, my priest has devoted his life to this wearing of "costumes." The things I want to say to you right now are so unChristian. Well, GiC, if it bothers you so much, maybe you should joing the True Orthodox Church?

But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass.

No he didn't. Nowhere did he question whether they were valid Mysteries. This is the kind of word twisting I'm talking about!What he said was that the Western Rite is a Liturgical reform which surpasses even the Novus Ordo of Vatican II- and should not have taken place. The Novus Ordo was at least based on an existing Liturgy which was in use. That was his point.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

OK, that's it. If "Monophysite" is bad, this is worse. Saying that other people are just pretending to do the liturgy is, to me, at the top of the list of slanders that gets tossed out by Ortho-partisans. Call it false religion if you must, but implying that it is deliberate pretense isÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š malicious. I know that you know better than that. It's about time the moderators starting quashing people who say things like this.

How soon people forget the other threads that go on here when convenient. Remember I'm the one who is condemned as the 'Ecumenist' and as a supporter of the 'Ecumenist Patriarch,' I'm probably one of only a small handful of Orthodox here who would argue for the Validity of the Latin Eucharist, and yes, this would Include the Liturgy of the Unia. But with that said, their Liturgy is still Play-Acting, it is pretending to be of a Tradition from which they are Divorced, they are people subject to a Western Patriarch pretending to be part of the Eastern Church. Same goes for the Western Rite, sure the Eucharist is valid, but they're still play-acting, pretending to be part of a Tradition they are divorced from.

Quote

"Foreign?" What could be more foreign in America than Greek Orthodoxy? Sheeeeeeesh.

Exactly my point, America and Greek Orthodoxy are Foreign to each other, and thus to avoid foreign influence, the Orthodox Church should avoid American influence.

I'm really getting tired of seeing GiC's words twisted on this forum to mean anything other than what he intended.I don't agree with some of his views, and have said so. Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said. And why bring up the race/ethnicity card? GiC certainly didn't. He made a valid point about a foreign concept, and you reply with the concept of "foreigners" in your country.

But GiC said that western liturgies, when performed by Orthodox priests, were nothing more than play-acting while wearing costumes, and one step better than a clown mass. This is an astoundingly disrespectful way to speak of the mysteries and the liturgy of the Church. If he doesn't believe that WR liturgies are true liturgies, and that the mysteries are not present in them, then he should have the courage of his convictions to say it, rather than making insulting comments about liturgies of the Church.

Clown masses are a mockery of tradition, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are invalid; same goes for the Western Rite.

The Novus Ordo was at least based on an existing Liturgy which was in use. That was his point.

Really? I was unaware of this. I had heard that the Eucharistic Canons were previous ones in the early church of the West but I was unaware the rest was based on an existing Liturgy. That's interesting ozgeorge, I had always thought Paul VI practically made it up himself! What Liturgy is the Novus Ordo taken from?

Really? I was unaware of this. I had heard that the Eucharistic Canons were previous ones in the early church of the West but I was unaware the rest was based on an existing Liturgy. That's interesting ozgeorge, I had always thought Paul VI practically made it up himself! What Liturgy is the Novus Ordo taken from?

Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.

Keble, if you can't see that what GiC is saying is that the Uniate Churches appear Orthodox when they are not, and that the Western Rite appears Roman Catholic when it is not, then perhaps you need to revisit what he said.

Uniate churches appear Eastern because they are. To say that Eastern==Orthodox is to beg the question.

No he didn't. Nowhere did he question whether they were valid Mysteries. This is the kind of word twisting I'm talking about!

He implied it with this quote:

Quote

For the same reason I would call a uniate priest's vestments a 'costume,' they may be Holy Vestments of the Priesthood when worn by Orthodox Priests, but when worn by the Unia they are nothing more than constume, inorder that the Liturgy of the Orthodox, with whom they are divorced, may be preformed like the theater.

I see now that he has clarified that he believes the mysteries do exist in western liturgies, which makes his insulting comments about "costumes" and "play-acting" all the worse. He is talking about Orthodox priests serving at the altar of God at the most holy Divine Liturgy! Even if one thinks it pastorally unwise to continue using the WR, it is still unacceptable to refer to the mysteries as "play acting" and the vesments as "costumes".

Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.

Incorrect. Even ignoring the issue of the anaphora, the Novus Ordo liturgy is a radical departure from the Tridentine. The entrance rites were cut down severely, the Kyrie abbreviated, another reading added, the gradual replaced by a responsorial psalm, the prayer before the Gospel cut down (in fact, pretty much all of the priest's silent prayers were eliminated or radically shortened), a litany added after the creed, the offertory prayers completely removed and replaced by two short blessings, the Mysterium Fidei removed from the words of institution and made into a responsorial, the last Gospel removed...

You can see a comparison of the two missals here. It is obvious that much stuff other than the anaphora was removed or changed.

Well, if I recall properly Eucharistic Prayer I is quite close to the Tridentine Mass (with only a few relatively minor changes), the other three are a more Radical Departure from it, trying to re-invent earlier liturgies, but the fixed elements of the Mass outside the 'Eucharistic Prayer' I believe are a fairly direct derivation from the Tridentine mass.

It got me to thinking what I would do in a similar situation. If I only had a choice between a Western Orthodox church and an Eastern Catholic church I'd definitely choose to the Orthodox church because I could receive Communion. (Of course this is hypothetical as there are no places in the US where the only Orthodox parishes are Western Orthodox.)

For me, there wouldn't be a doubt in my mind. Even if I wasn't allowed to take communion, I'd still go to the Orthodox Church. I think people get too hung up on liturgy, and seem to think that a right liturgy somehow magically transforms a non-Orthodox group into a group that is Orthodox (if only marginally). There are cafeteria Christianity people doing liturgies in their basement that are problably more perfectly executed than what you'd see in your normal parish. They have all the right clothes, they do all the right movements, they say all the right words. But that doesn't make them Eastern Orthodox. Now, I don't mean to compare Eastern Catholics to cafeteria Christians, I'm just bringing it up to show the extremes that one might go to if one buys into the orthodox liturgy = orthodox group mindset. Every person in an Eastern Catholic parish might be more pious than me, might be more liturgically knowledgable than me, might even do everything perfectly and according to traditional custom. But if they are under the Pope of Rome, then they are not Orthodox and I would not attend their parish (as an active, ongoing member).

Both Metropolitan Philip and Bishop Basil, Antiochian ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š hierarchs who have the responsibilities fro Western Rite parishes have gone on record noting that a man is ordained an Orthodox Priest and not a western rite or byzantine rite priest. They both make the clear point that a man is called to the PRIESTHOOD by Christ and ordained a PRIEST by the Bishop. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š What makes them Orthodox is not their "Rite" but rather the beliefs they hold and their communion with other Orthodox Bishops. On this forum, I frequently read ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š that we all hope that the Latin/Roman catholic Church will repent of its false doctrine and return to the Orthodox Church Teachings and communion with the Orthodox Christian Church. It seems that the bishops who administer the western rite parishes understand this, is it possible that there are Laity members who forget that it is not "rite" that makes one orthodox but rather beliefs and doctrine---otherwise we could be Eastern Rite Catholics and still be in the Orthodox Church. Let us honor and support the return to Orthodox Beliefs that our Western Rite parishes have embraced and greet them as the prodigal son was greeted---with joy and celebration!

I don't have time now to really deal with this, but I still find it remarkable that, having gotten the correct answer to the question out in like the first three posts, we now have this rambling "right rite" thread.

Or maybe I should just find it depressingly familiar. The root problem with these sorts of discussions is this: if rites have an objective, intrinsic validity, then the major differences between Western and Eastern rites are immaterial to their validity, because these differences tend not to be found in older rites. If the rite of the Diddache is valid, then we need not trouble ourselves with this nitpicks.

Validity of rite is far more often about the authority of those who approve it-- which isn't wrong, either, but it's also patently not intrinsic.

Well the Tridintine Rite Mass and Pauline Rite Mass are COMPLETELY different.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Eucharistic Prayer I is only based off the Traditional Canon, and even then cut down A LOT.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š As someone else pointed out, all the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone, much of the penitential rites are deleted, it's a different Mass.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š A what used to be Pontifical Mass (Bishop or higher), is pretty much the same as any other mass...I've seen some where there was absolutely no difference at all.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I for a long time wanted to become a priest in the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) which is a Traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity, but I found the priesthood is not for me.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š So it's so unfortunate that the "Mass" promulgated by Paul VI and the Mass of the Tridintine Rite under Pius IV (or V, not sure) are so different and one you can tell has parts of Ancient Rites while the other...well....

The Choir, like the Organ, amongst the Greek Orthodox Church at least, was a foreign concept that was introduced into the Church here in America.

Irrelevant. Choirs are a different version of a capella, while organs are fundamentally different (canonical violation?). If "foreign concept" and "introduced...in America" are problems, then you and all other non-ethnic Greeks should leave the GOA...as well as forcing all parishes to only use Greek (even if no one speaks any) and force all remaining ethnic Greeks to learn it.

I'm sure one of our Serbian brethren will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Slava originally a pagan custom that the Church baptized, replacing all the pagan influences with Orthodox ones? If so, that sounds just like a "foreign concept" to me, albeit one introduced in Serbia rather than America. Yet there's no problem with that. Maybe I missed the council that decided it, but when exactly was the cutoff date for "foreign concepts" to be baptized into Orthodoxy? And if a pagan celebration can be redeemed and cleansed by the Holy Spirit, why not a liturgy used by heterodox Christians? Seriously, could someone explain to me why one's okay and the other isn't? If we're against introducing "foreign concepts," why do we use the Cross so much? Come on, we all know that was a Roman invention, not something the Church came up with. That seems like the chief of "foreign concepts" baptized by the Church!

Let's call GiC's argument what it is, another expression of contempt, if not outright hatred, for anything not directly tied to the Greek church, as evidenced by the backhanded insult directed at the Slavic tradition of choirs. I really want to read the argument for why Greek culture is the only one the Holy Spirit could baptize and why all others aren't really Orthodox.

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

Well the Tridintine Rite Mass and Pauline Rite Mass are COMPLETELY different.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Eucharistic Prayer I is only based off the Traditional Canon, and even then cut down A LOT.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š As someone else pointed out, all the prayers at the foot of the altar are gone, much of the penitential rites are deleted, it's a different Mass.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š A what used to be Pontifical Mass (Bishop or higher), is pretty much the same as any other mass...I've seen some where there was absolutely no difference at all.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I for a long time wanted to become a priest in the SSPX (Society of Saint Pius X) which is a Traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity, but I found the priesthood is not for me.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š So it's so unfortunate that the "Mass" promulgated by Paul VI and the Mass of the Tridintine Rite under Pius IV (or V, not sure) are so different and one you can tell has parts of Ancient Rites while the other...well....

But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.

Irrelevant. Choirs are a different version of a capella, while organs are fundamentally different (canonical violation?).

I want to say that I remember a patristic canon forbiding the use of devices to amplify the voice during Chanting, but I dont know that I've come accross one against using musical insturments, though I've come accross fathers speaking against their use in Church. I dont know that either Choirs or Organs are uncanonical.

Quote

If "foreign concept" and "introduced...in America" are problems, then you and all other non-ethnic Greeks should leave the GOA...as well as forcing all parishes to only use Greek (even if no one speaks any) and force all remaining ethnic Greeks to learn it.

Last I checked I wasn't a concept, though some here may view me as such...lol. But with that said, while I certainly understand the concern of having Converts in the Church, we all come with our baggage, I think you're trying to twist what I'm saying. Nothing inherently wrong with Converts to the Faith, but we should leave our heritage, culture, and other baggage behind and conform ourselves to the Church, rather than expect the Church to conform to us.

I'm sure one of our Serbian brethren will correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Slava originally a pagan custom that the Church baptized, replacing all the pagan influences with Orthodox ones? If so, that sounds just like a "foreign concept" to me, albeit one introduced in Serbia rather than America.

I am not certain as to the origin of Slava, but it's hardly a practice comprable to radically altering the entire Liturgical Tradition of the Church. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Serbians do use the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom instead of the religious ceremonies they used before their people Converting to Orthodoxy? Now something the 'western rite' could do comprable to the Serbian practice of Slava, provided it is of pagan origin, would be to use the Typika of the Orthodox Churches, while still saying the rosary at home as a private devotion, or perhaps naming their Church after St. Patrick or St. Leo the Great or St. Ambrose of Milan, while using the Liturgy of the Orthodox Church...this is comparing apples and apples, instead of apples and oranges like you are trying to.

Quote

Yet there's no problem with that. Maybe I missed the council that decided it, but when exactly was the cutoff date for "foreign concepts" to be baptized into Orthodoxy?

Slava is a good example of baptizing an a cultural Element and making it Orthodox, adopting all the customs of the Culture you are converting while destroying all the traditions of the Orthodox is a bad example; I mean that's comprable to having kept all the traditions and rites of the pagans, but when Zeus or Athena was supposed to me mentioned, we could simply cross it out and insert 'Christ' or 'Mary,' keeping all the same rites and practices. This is basically what we did with the western rite, we crossed out the filioque, threw a little yeast into the bread, changed the wording in a couple prayers, and there you go.

Quote

Let's call GiC's argument what it is, another expression of contempt, if not outright hatred, for anything not directly tied to the Greek church, as evidenced by the backhanded insult directed at the Slavic tradition of choirs. I really want to read the argument for why Greek culture is the only one the Holy Spirit could baptize and why all others aren't really Orthodox.

LOL, let's turn this debate about the western rite into a Greek vs. Slavic debate, sorry that doesn't work; the Slavic peoples accepted the Liturgical Rites of the Orthodox when the converted and incorporated them into their Culture, a true baptizing of Cultures, that's not what's being suggested with the so-called western rite, but rather what is demanded is a complete abrogation of the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox, so that it may be replaced with heterodox liturgical rites.

And, btw, my comment about Choirs refered to the Greek Churches, the Slavic Churches are free to maintain their Choirs, as they regard them as part of their Liturgical Customs (granted, it's western influence, but oh well)...however, in the Greek Church they are foreign innovations, generally only found in the diaspora, and should be done away with.

And, btw, my comment about Choirs refered to the Greek Churches, the Slavic Churches are free to maintain their Choirs, as they regard them as part of their Liturgical Customs (granted, it's western influence, but oh well)...however, in the Greek Church they are foreign innovations, generally only found in the diaspora, and should be done away with.

1. Choirs being "western influenced" - it depends how you define a "choir". >1 solo chanter? >1 chanter + a few isoners? Znammeny is the oldest Russian chant, and you know what, it's original notation is that same as the original Byzantine. Should we throw out any Byzantine with western notation? Any type of polyphony constitutes a choir? Btw, my priest is probably one of the more qualified people in the USA Orthodox world - even though he is in the OCA and 100% Carpatho-Russian, and he says that there is actually no (known) historical proof of an ison existing - it is more recent than most think.

2. Got news for you buddy - as we've told you before, the diaspora IS the flock of the Church of Constantinople. You don't have much of local flock. Whether you like it or not, choirs have become part of your tradition.

2.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Got news for you buddy - as we've told you before, the diaspora IS the flock of the Church of Constantinople.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š You don't have much of local flock.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Whether you like it or not, choirs have become part of your tradition.

The New Territories as well as the Church of Crete also fall under the Oecumenial Throne. I wouldn't say that Choirs (by which everyone knows what I mean, regardless of how they try to redefine it, trying to equate two psaltes to a Choir) have become part of our tradition, they are just a relatively popular perversion of the Tradition of the Great Church, hopefully we can eliminate them, it will take time to eliminate all the episcopalian influences on the Church in America, but it is far from impossible.

P.S. Why would we use Byzantine music with Western notation when it's all readily available in Byzantine notation?

I'm hardly an expert on the subject, so I won't puport to act as one, I'll offer a couple of comments though.

About Slava I've heard the "pagan" past story before and I've even read some literature on it, however, I've discussed it both with my parish priest and Bishop, and both insist it does not have pagan roots. Not entirely sure to be honest.

As for the issue of Choir... I am a Slavic Serb and my grandfather happened to be one of the founders of the first Serbian Orthodox Church in Canada. I can tell you that when the Church opened it was sans choir, but the choir came as the parish evolved.

I say this because it is kind of consistent with what GiC is saying. Not that I necessarily agree that a choir is a bad thing, but I do think (at least as far as this particular parish is concerned), it was something that developed from being in the west. My father insists they had choirs "back home", although my grandfather disputed this consistently.

The New Territories as well as the Church of Crete also fall under the Oecumenial Throne. I wouldn't say that Choirs (by which everyone knows what I mean, regardless of how they try to redefine it, trying to equate two psaltes to a Choir) have become part of our tradition, they are just a relatively popular perversion of the Tradition of the Great Church, hopefully we can eliminate them, it will take time to eliminate all the episcopalian influences on the Church in America, but it is far from impossible.

But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.

That is your own personal opinion and my own, as a Catholic, the Eastern and Western Rites are completely differnet but the Pre-Vatican II Mass and Post-Vatican II Mass are NOT 'infinetly close together' by any means. Even the words of consecration are changed, along with almost everything else. Also, your statement would only be true if the Orthodox Bishops tore out the Eastern style type of church and made it Western, otherwise there is no liturgical reform in your church. Catholicism was affected world wide, and there was no choice for anyone who wasn't Pope. Your talking about the SAME church but different Rites. Many of us "Latins" know the Eastern Rite and Western Rite are very different, but we also know the Novus Ordo is not anywhere near close to Tridintine Rite.

That is your own personal opinion and my own, as a Catholic, the Eastern and Western Rites are completely differnet but the Pre-Vatican II Mass and Post-Vatican II Mass are NOT 'infinetly close together' by any means.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Even the words of consecration are changed, along with almost everything else.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Also, your statement would only be true if the Orthodox Bishops tore out the Eastern style type of church and made it Western, otherwise there is no liturgical reform in your church.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Catholicism was affected world wide, and there was no choice for anyone who wasn't Pope.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Your talking about the SAME church but different Rites.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Many of us "Latins" know the Eastern Rite and Western Rite are very different, but we also know the Novus Ordo is not anywhere near close to Tridintine Rite.

Last I checked the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden, the Novus Ordo just seems to be the prefrence of most modern Catholics, from the Laity all the way up to the Pope (I know it's not forbidden because I've been to them celebrated by Latin Priests, not SSPX). Even if the new Liturgy is not forced on everyone, the fact that a new Liturgy is created, and permitted to be used, is in and of itself Liturgical Reform.

Last I checked the Tridentine Mass was not forbidden, the Novus Ordo just seems to be the prefrence of most modern Catholics, from the Laity all the way up to the Pope (I know it's not forbidden because I've been to them celebrated by Latin Priests, not SSPX). Even if the new Liturgy is not forced on everyone, the fact that a new Liturgy is created, and permitted to be used, is in and of itself Liturgical Reform.

The new Liturgy IS forced on everyone. The Missal of 1962 (aka, Tridentine Mass) is only allowed by epsicopal indult per the norms of the Apostolic Letter, Ecclesia Dei.

The only way the Missal of 1962 is usually only allowed in a diocese if there is a SSPX mission in that same diocese or near it. And if it is allowed, the Bishop places it in a small parish in the middle of nowhere: that's how it is in my archdiocese, Vancouver. It's in a hard to get to place, in the smallest church that I know of in the diocese.

you can probably count on your hands the number of Psaltis in the "new territories" and "diaspora" who can actually read it.

I'd say all (or at least a very high percentage) of the psaltes in the new territories can read byzantine notation. In the diaspora I'd agree that very few can really read it well.

But as usual I'll add the disclaimer that what GiC is saying doesn't represent the GOA nor the traditional Greek sentiments on the issue. Regarding European notation for Byzantine Chant St. Athony's Monastery has released a massive work putting much chant into western notation. http://stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Index.html

But the two Masses are infinitely closer together than the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and ANY 'western rite' Liturgies, hence my statement that the 'western rite' is liturgical reform to a degree so radical that if far surpasses anything Vatican II did to the Mass of the Latins.

Well, no. The Western rites are the more primitive; the main reason why the rite of Chrysostom is so different from a western rite is that it has been elaborated immensely since Chrysostom's day. The differences which first strike the naive viewer are also the most recent innovations.

I have no experience with Greek liturgies, and I have experience with only one Antiochian parish, which, being mostly converts, uses a mixture of Byzantine and Russian music. Frankly, the Byzantine stuff sounds like space noise to me, since it is preharmonic. Everyone else? I've sung for over a dozen weddings where I came as part of a hired choir. Slavic churches seem to take for granted that there will be a choir.

And the alternative to having a choir is not having a cantor; it is having the congregation sing all the responses, or having no singing at all. A cantor is a choir of one.

Quote

LOL, let's turn this debate about the western rite into a Greek vs. Slavic debate, sorry that doesn't work; the Slavic peoples accepted the Liturgical Rites of the Orthodox when the converted and incorporated them into their Culture, a true baptizing of Cultures, that's not what's being suggested with the so-called western rite, but rather what is demanded is a complete abrogation of the Liturgical Tradition of the Orthodox, so that it may be replaced with heterodox liturgical rites.

But that begs the question, doesn't it? Because if heterodoxy is the problem, then the Tikhonian solution of modifying the text to make it theologically acceptable is sufficient.

First, here is an article from the Greek Archdiocese of Denver; thankfully (lest we be accused of Greek-bashing again), not all Greek bishops are so tied to rite that they forget about episcopal intercommunion.

It is not "Greek-bashing". It is "Heresy-bashing"...Either the views derived from a Greek or from a Russian or an American, it doesn't really make a difference for a (real) Orthodox

Well, no. The Western rites are the more primitive; the main reason why the rite of Chrysostom is so different from a western rite is that it has been elaborated immensely since Chrysostom's day. The differences which first strike the naive viewer are also the most recent innovations.

I may be a naive viewer, but if the Western Rite, (unlike the Byzantine) hasn't been elaborated, and is not simply an attempt to make Orthodoxy look Roman Catholic, then why does the bread used in the Western Rite have to be flattened to resemble an azyme? What is the point of leavened bread being made to look unleavened?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

I may be a naive viewer, but if the Western Rite, (unlike the Byzantine) hasn't been elaborated, and is not simply an attempt to make Orthodoxy look Roman Catholic, then why does the bread used in the Western Rite have to be flattened to resemble an azyme? What is the point of leavened bread being made to look unleavened?

I wouldn't say that it hasn't been elaborated; it simply hasn't been elaborated to the same degree.

As far as the bread is concerned: there is no special Anglican praxis about the bread. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Anglican circles in this country pita bread has been the preferred element for some decades. But this is simply a matter of convenience.

As far as the bread is concerned: there is no special Anglican praxis about the bread. I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Anglican circles in this country pita bread has been the preferred element for some decades. But this is simply a matter of convenience.

I think you missed my meaning.My question is: "Why is the Host used in the Western Rite Orthodox Eucharist made to resemble a Roman Catholic Communion wafer?"ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Orthodoxy requires the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, but the Western Rite Orthodox flatten the leavened bread so that it looks like an unleavened (azyme) Communion wafer. I can't see the point of this, particularly if the Western Rite is reaching back to it's pre-schism Orthodox past- why make the Host look unOrthodox?

« Last Edit: August 04, 2005, 09:28:21 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Orthodoxy requires the use of leavened bread in the Eucharist, but the Western Rite Orthodox flatten the leavened bread so that it looks like an unleavened (azyme) Communion wafer. I can't see the point of this, particularly if the Western Rite is reaching back to it's pre-schism Orthodox past- why make the Host look unOrthodox?

The host being flattened and rounded is the more primitive tradition -- look at the prosphora used by the Coptic or Syrian rites. The pre-schism Western rites used a host of this sort as well. The thick cube used by the Byzantine rite is the odd one out.

It would make no sense for the Western rite to use a Byzantine-style cube, as there is no elaborate prothesis rite in which it is cut out. It would also make an extreme mess at the elevations, as the host itself is being lifted up, and crumbs would go everywhere.

I've not seen an Orthodox western rite eucharist, so maybe there's some failure of communication here. I'm simply going by contemporaneous Anglican practice. But again, to echo the form issue: what rules exist are extremely minimal. Leavening, shape, even the grain involved do not matter for Anglicans; the only rules for Roman Catholics are (a) wheat and (b) unleavened. I've seen matzo used, and it's perfectly legitimate. It's preferred to have something that doesn't crumb too easily but (if wafers aren't used) is easily broken up for distribution.

I'd say all (or at least a very high percentage) of the psaltes in the new territories can read byzantine notation.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š In the diaspora I'd agree that very few can really read it well.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

But as usual I'll add the disclaimer that what GiC is saying doesn't represent the GOA nor the traditional Greek sentiments on the issue.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Regarding European notation for Byzantine Chant St. Athony's Monastery has released a massive work putting much chant into western notation.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š http://stanthonysmonastery.org/music/Index.htmlÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

You don't get it - western notation for Byzantine chant is "bad" and an "innovation"!

You don't get it - western notation for Byzantine chant is "bad" and an "innovation"!

To be exact, western notation is not an exact copy of Byzantine. The music/chant cannot be completely rendered faithful to that intended. That said, western IS better than NO notation and the loss of the total art.

Quote

What are the "new territorties" vs the "diaspora"?

"New territories" are the bishropics in Greece which have been under the EP for centuries, if not always. ozgeorge gave a good explanation as to how these are now administered for the EP by the Church of Greece (thank those wonderful Turks)."Diaspora" - outside lands under no prior authority, I believe.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Let me say that I've enjoyed this thread. GiC, I want to commend you for bringing up the contrast between living tradition vs. "reconstructed" tradition; it's about the only point folks have made that could stand against the current western rite experiment. It's still apparent to me, though, that this is a legitimate move on behalf of Antioch and ROCOR. My comments below will attempt to explain why.

Pedro,How outlandish of me to refer to the Instructions that my former Metropolitan, of Most Blessed Memory, gave on the matter. Heaven forbid I would have sought the advoce of my Bishop.

Yes, yes, you even reply as he did to the Rev. Paul Schneider, Vicar of the Western Rite. Allusion noted.

Quote

We are in a difficult pastoral posistion of having to deal with Priests and Parishes who, while under the Great and Ancient Patriarchate of Anitoch, have divorced themselves from the Tradition of the said patriarchate.

Divorced? Hardly, as Antioch has allowed them to do this. It's not as if they came in, then went western rite!

Quote

Thus, the decrees of the Metropolitan directed HIS Priests not to involve themselves in this radical departure from the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Churches

Again, departure? Divorce? First, this is not an originally Eastern-Rite (ER) parish network that decided to strip down the ER so they could be something else. They are western in character. Secondly, I can completely understand his saying, "no concelebration with them," as you'd have to be bi-ritually ordained by your bishop to concelebrate; I don't know of anyone who's ever been qualified to do that since Ss. Cyril and Methodius (maybe St. John Maximovitch?). But to say "no contact with them, don't attend their services" is to turn a blind eye to the diversity that's always existed within the Church for various reasons.

Quote

(Strange how people will be up in arms about the removal of a few prayers to shorten a service, but will openly support a complete and utter destruction of the Liturgical Customs of the Eastern Church),

No one's attempting to destroy the Eastern Rite. Calm down and stop overreacting. This, as I've said, is western in character, and in no way is set up to effect change within ER parishes. We are, however, affirming that which is already Orthodox within the anglican and RC rites and filling in the rest as Orthodox. You're right in saying that it's not the same as what Episcopalians and Catholics do, as are you right in saying that what any western rite parish is doing is not the same as what happened pre-schism. But liturgies have always had give-and-take throughout the centuries, with this region pulling from that region's liturgy to put this prayer here or there, etc. No, it's not done willy-nilly--much deliberation and prayer should go into this--but it has been done. Often.

Quote

forbade Priests who did not dress themselves in the Vestments of the Church from Celebrating in HIS Churches (Heaven forbid we require priests to dress like priests, wouldn't it just be great if we could have Clown Liturgies instead?), and sought to protect the Faithful under HIS Omophorion from this departure from Orthodox Tradition.

I know this was already addressed, but why the jump from western rite (a venerable practice which has had its place in the Church) from necessarily making the way for Clown Liturgies (a joke which is a mere innovation with no apostolic support)?

Quote

As I am opposed to the Unia in the Latin Church, consistancy requires me to hold a similar view of the so-called 'western rite,' for me to take a more sympathetic posistion would require that either I accept the intrusion of the Unia as legitimage or embrace the hypocracy of conflicting posistions, neither of which I find acceptable.

Pardon me, but bull. The Unia was set up as a direct effort to pull Orthodox parishes into communion with Rome (and, thus, heresy, divorcing them from the Church's dogma). The Unia is based on prosetylization, while the WRO are groups of western Christians who have themselves, of their own volition, come over to the Church. None of this "Episcopalians in communion with Antioch," identity crisis nonsense.

Quote

The easiest solution would be for the so-called 'western rite' parishes to start acting Orthodox, and embrace the Liturgical Traditions of the Orthodox Church.

Eastern. For western rite parishes to start acting eastern and embrace the traditions of the Byzantine Rite. This is what should be said. As has been mentioned, rite means absolutely nothing in terms of belief. Correct doctrine, along with apostolic, eucharistic worship which has been approved by a canonically recognized Orthodox bishop is what makes one Orthodox. Period.

As yBeayf correctly stated, the more ancient (and still extant) tradition was the wafer-esque style. It's just that it doesn't look Byzantine. Byzantine =/= Orthodox.

Finally, to address GiC's comments about accepting the rites of heterodox bishops (i.e., the Archbishop of Canterbury) who return with their flocks to the Church, well, I'd say that'll never happen short of a miracle, but let's say it did. You'd still wind up with something FAR removed from the Eastern traditions and something that, really, would only be about a step away from what the AOAA WR is doing now. So I ask: apart from the formality that the WRO would (in this hypothetical situation) now have their own, WR bishop to be WR (in almost the exact same way) under, how would the problem which the late Metr. Antony perceived be any different? We'd still have a western "foreign element" within a Church that has long been exclusively eastern (really, exclusively monoritual, thanks to the 13th Century decree that wiped out all other eastern liturgies in favor of the imperial one) worshipping in a way that is distinct (not divorced) from the eastern liturgies, and that is almost identical to what the AOAAWRV is doing now.

The Orthodox-is-only-Byzantine idea could possibly lead to what was posted on GEnie back in the dim times, that the *only* acceptable music to worship God was Byzantine Chant. God, I think, can hear worship in many ways that Humanity has come up with.

If both St. Tikhon and St. John of San Francisco did not think ill of "Western" worship in general as being Orthodoxible (to mangle the language) I should think that their thoughts count for much more then some random laypeople.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis